Saturday, July 19, 2008

A) More money than my entire education costB) More money than my entire education and your entire education costC) More money than my entire education and your entire education cost, plus the salaries of everyone working at our respective colleges, from the Dean down to the professors to the janitors.... plus whatever money they have in their couchesD) All of the above, times one billion

The difference with, say, The Hours or - a better example - Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs is that the performances that could have easily been supporting (Kidman, Streep and Hopkins) were placed in lead because the films themselves didn't have a true identifiable lead of their respective gender. If Clarice Starling had a male partner who was in the movie as much as she then I'm not sure anybody would've bought Hopkins as lead, but as it was...

And I think that'll go for Ledger. It's quite obvious that he's not the lead and that there is another man in the movie who is. Like how in Batman Returns, if Catwoman were actually a man then it'd no question be a supporting turn, but because she's a woman it's actually a bit ambiguous because there no other major female character to share the screen.

The BEST examples, for precedent, actually all have another lead of the same gender, save Silence of the Lambs. I'm talking about Prada, Training Day, Last King of Scotland. All films where there was a protagonist and also a villain of sorts, who ended up getting the lead attention OVER the true lead of the same gender.

Male/female partnerships often label both of them as leads because there's often a love story aspect, and they are both leads in that. Batman Returns and Silence are examples of that. It's about the relationship. If the true star is the relationship, then they're both leads. It also helps if they can have their own categories.

But anyway, none of that is relevant here. Everyone's talking about Ledger; no one's talking about Bale. A campaign for him would probably go nowhere. So there's no reason not to campaign Ledger for lead, strategically speaking. Supporting may ultimately make more sense, especially if they're aiming for a lead, but I'm just sayin, there's nothing stopping them from attempting lead. Everyone's saying it's the Joker's movie.

Also, since I've already started another comment, the other reason Silence was a different situation is cause Jodie Foster was so clearly award-worthy in her own right. No one would've wanted to throw her over the bus in order to make way for a campaign for Hopkins. Luckily, they were of different genders, so it wasn't an issue. Had they not been, then I'm sure Hopkins would've gone supporting and won there.

But that's not the case this time. The buzz is ALL about Ledger. And as we've seen, Bale never gets nommed even when he's got lots of bait and buzz. So they'd be dumb to try for a lead actor nod for him anyway.

The Dark Knight is currently #1 on Imdb's top 250 of all time list...A list we all know is mostly bullshit, but still. I don't think a new release has ever cracked the top ten before in its opening weekend, so look for it to hover somewhere around the 20 as the hype levels off.

I agree that Ledger's definitely in for a nod if he gets campaigned in supporting. I'm not sure he's guaranteed a win in either case, no matter how deserving he is. There are still hurdles to overcome. Early release date. The film's genre.

Category confusion actually gets on my nerves less when an actor goes lead for a supporting performance rather than the other way around (if that makes sense). Lead is always a more competitive category and judged against a completely different set of criteria. There are a few exceptions, sure, but generally it's not as self-serving (competition wise) to go from supporting to lead. I think the days of double lead nods, a la "Thelma and Louise" are over. Category fraud is still annoying, either way though and actually makes me turn on performances I like sometimes. Like Jake Gyllenhaal for best supporting actor in Brokeback Mountain. Totally inexcusable, unless (and this is a huge leap) you're looking at it from the perspective of the short story, which is arguably told largely from Ennis' point of view.

adam k --where are you hearing "legit best actor talk" ... i don't know anyone who has seen it that would claim he's the lead. 'legit supporting actor talk' sure.

Jack Nicholson's Joker was closer to a 'lead' ;)

anyway. i'm already bummed that I won't be able to join the party of everyone saying 'BEST MOVIE EVER MADE' -i enjoyed it but it isn't without problems... there's a perfect storm of hype and enthusiasm and heath ledger timing happening here.

Adam, I'm not saying Bale will get any awards buzz, but he is obviously, clearly, blatantly and definitely the only true lead performance in The Dark Knight. Sometimes they can get away with bumping a supporting performance into lead if the movie it's in doesn't have a clear and definably lead (oscar worthy of not) but Ledger is not a lead performance and there is another male performance in the movie that proves that (Bale) by with pure screen time.

As I said, if Ledger's role were played by a female (just imagine!) then there would be a legit option of a lead actress push because there aren't any other women in the movie who you could say are leads. But Bale is the film's lead role and The Joker isn't even a joint lead role like Ledger/Gyllenhaal, Washingto/Hawke, Cruise/Foxx or McAvoy/Whitaker. It's a supporting role. The movie is 152 minutes and I'd guess Ledger's in maybe 40 of them. Perhaps if Two Face weren't in it and it were only the one villain and more time was spent with him then maybe there'd be a case for it, but there's too much going on in that movie for Ledger to be a joint lead like the titles you mentioned. No way.

That's why the Hopkins example is a good one. If Lecter was a woman then there would be no way in hell they'd push the actress playing her for lead even if Foster was awful. But because it was a male role and that movie had no definable lead male actors then it was acceptable (dubiously, I must say. I still don't really know if Hopkins is lead or supporting).

Anyway, I agree with Nat. There's some extreme hyperbole going on I think. I still like it a lot, but there are flaws.

Oh, and also, TDK is going to become one of those movies. A movie where even if you like it you're going to be defending yourself against attacks all year round purely because you don't think it's god's gift to cinema.

I gave it 8.5/10 and I'm being harassed because I apparently just wasn't paying enough attention. Yikes.

yeah, it's gonna be tough. I was alarmed at how sloppy it was myself (dangling plot threads, scenes that seemed like they'd been cut out, etcetera...) way too sloppy for a best of all time and it's not even as cinematographically interesting as BATMAN BEGINS.

Well my screening yesterday was FUCKED, the sound system in my theater was going in and out, it sounded like it was coming through a tin can half the time, so I'm going to have to see the movie again. And yes, I couldn't be more pissed off about it. I went with a bunch of people and the entire chaos of the Times Square theater situation kept me from leaving the movie halfway through... I knew I'd not get to watch it again that day, everything was sold out. Anyway, I was so distracted by the sound issues I sort of mentally checked out halfway through the movie. I think I will like it when viewed with SOUND. We'll see. UGH. Fuckers.

Sorry to rain on the parade boys, but this was clearly one of the worst movies ever made. I don't often walk out of movies (and hello, I live with Mr. Film Experience, so imagine the things I must see) but I had to leave the theater. When you've reduced Maggie Gyllenhall to boredly reading cue-cards you've clearly not done something right.

My only serious gripe with the film was that of the four pillars of the film - Gordon, Dent, Joker and Wayne/Batman - we spent less 'real time' with Batman than any of them. (By 'real time', I mean time where he was the real man, not the Wayne persona or the Batman persona.) To not really spend time with him as he dealt with the **SPOILER** death of a childhood friend **END SPOILER** was an opportunity that really should have been capitalised upon. Also to get so many of his big lines from the Batman voice was a choice that may have backfired.

Nolan's action sequences remain vexing, and there are a few dangling threads in it, but those were secondary concerns. (And the dangling threads were probably 'lesser of two evils' editing calls - lose a scene to shorten a film and lose micro-narrative closure).

Still, I liked what I liked much more than I disliked what I disliked. Has any mainstream blockbuster more intelligently used game theory as a narrative device?

it's only the weak minded who simply can't stand the idea of differences of opinion.

everyone else realizes that respecting them is crucial to the perpetuation of civilized society. So basically I'm like the movie blogosphere's White Knight. HA HA. I can't be forced into criminal behavior (i.e. ad copy in place of criticism) by organized crime (i.e. bullying fanboys)

i kid. I kid. I don't have Aaron Eckhart's awesome hair or dimpled chin and it's all so silly cuz i did enjoy the movie.